Infinite number of Universes and winning the lottery.

[Rev. Green]

People often say things like "If the number of Universes is infinite, there must be some where I've won the lottery".

Can someone with a good understanding of Aleph-null, Aleph-one, etc. tell me if this is correct? I suspect that it isn't. The number of positions for this pencil is infinite. Perhaps all the other Universes are just like ours with the pencil in different positions - and I've won ziltch on the lottery in all of them.

[jake-the-peg]

ctd


This sensitivity means that it's easy for quantum effects like background radiation to have a significant effect on the lottery numbers which in turn implies different numbers in different Universes (if they exist) .

But in a way you have already won it's just there is no communication between the universes and the particular "you" that is writing this question is not one of the lucky ones.

This kind of hints at a really interesting question about what makes you "you" and what woult seperate two people who were instantaneously copied down to the atomic level

[pleuni]

peg - good link....nice to 'know' and understand such like. Butterfly effect must happen a lot.

[jake-the-peg]

Oh it does.

This first started with the work of a Frenchman called Poincarre ( famous for the conjecture - but that's a story for another day )

He was trying to model the orbits of the planets and discoverred that although you can show that two orbiting bodies such as the Earth and the Moon are stable when you add a third the orbits are essentially unpredictable - as in a double pendulem.

This is known as the three body problem.

In point of fact it cannot be shown that the orbits of the planets will be stable forever and we could crash into the sun one day

but it has been shown that they will be stable for at least a few million years more so I'd not lose any sleep over it

[Rev. Green]

Thanks Jake for adding some sanity to this thread.

Further to your point about copying an individual, do you know of anything sensible written about consciousness? I've read huge tomes of philosophy which are all bunkum. No-one seems to have any idea what makes a human conscious and doesn't make a computer conscious (or is it?)

[jake-the-peg]

Try Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's new mind"

I've not read it myself - still on the list but I'm told it's good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New _Mind

Might be a little out of date now - not sure when the last revised edition was

[jason.p]

Like you Jake my science background i s based on the practical, so I find these "conceptual mathematical" like membranes, foam and multiple universes very difficult to get my head round. To me they are devices to balance equations, and true as they might be I like to see more tangible evidence. That is not to say I'm not fascinated by them purely as thought exercises.
Rev, books on consciousness might include Susan Blakemore and Rupert Sheldrake.

[jake-the-peg]

I have a simple test for theories

I ask is there a test that can be performed or could be performed with reasonably advanced technology to determine whether this theory is right or wrong.

If the answer is "no" it gets filed in my overflowing bin of "theoreticians fancies"